Nicholas and the Last King of Scotland

I was disappointed.

This is the evil version of The King and I. Foreigner in King's service tells his story. Except in this movie, Nicholas sees the good in his evil king, while Anna saw the flaws in her nobe king. And Nicholas and the King don't sing to each other. s.

What we saw of the King was a man switching back and forth from charming to evil. We have no clue why. We don't know much more about the reasons for Amin's rise to power, the relationships between Africa and the Colonial West.

I'm not sure that all the praise for Forrest Whitaker is warranted. It seemed to me to be great mimickry more than great acting. While we saw the charm and the horror of Amin, we don't really know who he is. Perhaps this is something a psychiatrist would have to tell us, something beyond an actor.

Why do we need the foreigner to tell the story? At least in Hotel Rwanda we saw the horror from the eyes of other, more noble African. But in other Africa films I've mentioned - Blood Diamonds, Constant Gardner and Babel whites were the entre into Africa. Perhaps this was less problematic because these whites were an integral part of the story and because the movies showed us the bigger picture of how the West was involved in Africa's problems. Or maybe I was lulled. In this case, the white foreigner is totally unnecessary to the main show - Idi Amin. He seems to be there because someone thinks that Western audiences can't relate to Africa without a white guide. (I realize that this is how Giles Foden, the author of the novel this is based on, wrote it. And as someone who spent years in Africa with his parents, that is how he would see things.) But we should see more movies about Africa where whites play a less prominent role.